I’m not expecting more than the shifting of deck chairs between 0.0.9 and RC1, and I expect the endorsers will be announced at the same time — a pointless metric if there ever was one.
Indeed, I imagine @Mer is already putting the finishing touches on her “Defining Open Source AI” presentation at Nerdearla 17:15-17:50 this Thursday, and I’m just hoping we can decide instead to measure twice and cut once on this given the damage we’re about to do to our cause. It’s not yet too late for us to examine the specific issue of data closer, with a view to producing a higher quality deliverable.
Developing an Open Source AI operating system, it is of great concern that we’re going to be lumped in the same bucket as “toxic candy” that does nothing to protect the 4 freedoms, which is why lining up this own goal constitutes a hair-on-fire emergency for us (and should for you).
Yes, I deliberately deep-linked to the 5-year old revision to show that one guy managed to achieve in his definition of Free Models what has escaped us after 17 town halls and who knows how many other meetings. I also linked to the current version which eliminates the “Sourceless” model, analogous to the “D-” quadrant @quaid proposed in another thread.
Yes, it’s unofficial, but it reflects the reality that Debian won’t distribute AI models any time soon. Which is fine, and better than compromising on our principles (i.e., the DFSG).
OSAID in its current form is more analogous to the Toxic Candy models “trained from unknown, private, or non-free datasets or simulators”, as it does not require data. For many/most models today this is not entirely different from distributing a recipe that requires unicorn eggs, and about as useful too from an Open Source perspective.